If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question. Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it? Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.

A trial under what laws? We cannot try them under our laws. Our soldiers who capture these people are not police officers. They do not handle evidence. They do not mirandize. They take Prisoners of War.

These are all illegal combatants. They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes. Nothing more.

In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.

A trial under what laws? We cannot try them under our laws. Our soldiers who capture these people are not police officers. They do not handle evidence. They do not mirandize. They take Prisoners of War.

These are all illegal combatants. They are entitled to a bullet between the eyes. Nothing more.

The least you could do is PROVE them guilty before shooting them. You have to understand. I don't know what you mean by proven to be terrorists. Neither do much of the civilian world. What's the proof? Did you see them with weapons, with the wrong people? Was there prior research linking them to terrorist groups and/or events? What's the evidence because I don't know what makes these people terrorists. Tell me. I want to know. Seriously. Is it real proof or is it suspicion? What is it? In the case of the lawyers here, they're smuggling al Qeada magaine. What's up with these people the military is capturing? I'm really not big on the "don't ask questions" ideology of things.

As to laws, that's a good point. I suppose trying them under our laws might look self-serving although I don't see a problem with it. They're basic laws against terrorism. In any case, I think this actually makes a case for an international court.

I still think there should be a trial though. You never answered the question.

Under what jurisdiction? What country's laws? These are stateless people we are fighting. They certainly don't qualify for U.S. protections under our Constitution.

Why not have a trial? You have the evidence, so what's wrong with presenting it?

You do realize that the vast majority of the evidence gathered is don be classified means and by people that were they to be named revealed or otherwise be exposed drink a trial would be dead before the judge adjourned for the day...along with every member of their family that still draws a breath.

Sources and methods used by the troops to find these thugs would now be in the open...giving the enemy a chance to adjust their tactics to avoid being caught.

But then I guess you think that's fair right?

Truth is the more you push the idea of these people not having a trial, the more you have people considering the possibility that they're innocent.

The only people that believe they are innocent are leftist Libtards like you.

Under what jurisdiction? What country's laws? These are stateless people we are fighting. They certainly don't qualify for U.S. protections under our Constitution.

You do realize that the vast majority of the evidence gathered is don be classified means and by people that were they to be named revealed or otherwise be exposed drink a trial would be dead before the judge adjourned for the day...along with every member of their family that still draws a breath.

Sources and methods used by the troops to find these thugs would now be in the open...giving the enemy a chance to adjust their tactics to avoid being caught.

But then I guess you think that's fair right?

The only people that believe they are innocent are leftist Libtards like you.

I didn't say they were innocent. I said I questioned it. You seem to think I should accept without asking questions.

Your argument about endangering people and their families could also be applied to when we try gang or mafia members. At least say WHAT the evidence is. You don't have to say who it came from. Say what it is.

Here it is...the articles of the Geneva Convention that lay out specifically who is entitled to protections.

Hint: The taliban aren't covered.

Article 4(A) of GPW defines the types of persons who, once they have fallen under the control of the enemy, are entitled to the legal status of POWs. The first three categories are the only ones relevant to the Taliban. Under Article 4(A)(1), individuals who are “members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict,” are entitled to POW status upon capture. Article 4(A)(3) includes as POWs members of “regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.”

Article 4(A)(2) includes as POWs members of “other militias” and “volunteer corps,” including “organized resistance movements” that belong to a Party to the conflict. In addition, members of militias and volunteer corps must “fulfill” four conditions: (a) “being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates”; (b) “having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”; (c) “carrying arms openly”; and (d) “conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.” Those four conditions reflect those required in the 1907 Hague Convention IV. See Commentary to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 49 (Red Cross 1952) (“Red Cross Commentary”) (“[D]uring the 1949 Diplomatic Conference . . . there was unanimous agreement that the categories of persons to whom the Convention is applicable must be defined, in harmony with the Hague Regulations.”).

I didn't say they were innocent. I said I questioned it. You seem to think I should accept without asking questions.

Gee could that be because I've been on the battlefield where these thugs operate?

You have the luxury to sit back here safe and sound and believe the sympathetic tales you read in Salon and the NY Times and on KOS and DU about these poor misunderstood bomb throwers.

My friends and fellow soldiers that have been blown up by these Angels with Dirty Faces as you like to look at the Taliban...didn't.

Your argument about endangering people and their families could also be applied to when we try gang or mafia members. At least say WHAT the evidence is. You don't have to say who it came from. Say what it is.

You know I can't figure out whether you just argue for arguments sake or you really are this stupid.

What if the hostilities don't end in this lifetime? And why should they wait until after?

Ask the guys who died in captivity during the Hundred Years War. The reason that you keep combatants locked up for the duration is because when you release them, they will return to the battlefield, unless the war is over. They aren't simply individual criminals, they're part of something bigger than themselves, as as long as they are committed to that something, they will continue to fight.

This isn't about them. They aren't criminals, they are combatants, and the case doesn't end when they are convicted, it ends when the organization that they belong to surrenders. This is about winning the war.

Originally Posted by Lanie

I have a problem with believing that somebody is guilty of a crime when people are reluctant to give him/her a trial to prove that. Seriously, what's the problem?

I know what some of the laws say, but I don't agree with them. I don't want people being held in definately for "being a terrorist" if they're not one. They need a trial.

You really don't understand the paradigm. You are thinking of them as criminals who need to be convicted of a crime, a something that needs to be addressed via the criminal justice system, but this is the wrong context. War isn't part of our justice system because it occurs outside of our jurisdiction, and the actions of the enemy on the battlefield do not come under our jurisdiction until the battlefield is under our jurisdiction, i.e., when the war is over and we have won. Because these men have engaged in terror attacks against civilian targets, you are thinking of them as common criminals, but terrorism on behalf of a foreign power isn't just a crime, it's an act of war. It extends the battlefield to the home front and makes non-combatants into targets, which makes it a war crime, but the prosecution of that crime is secondary. The first thing, the primary objective of the war effort, is winning the war. Trying them for war crimes doesn't advance the war effort. In fact, by obscuring their status, it sets it back because it creates conflicts like this. Giving them access to the classified data that was collected in their capture, presenting them with a forum to spout propaganda and collaborate with anti-American factions within the US, releasing combatants who will go back to the battlefield and take up arms the minute that they are released, these are acts that are suicidal in wartime, but we are doing them, because we have obscured and confused the nature of the threat. You have to understand that the GITMO detainees aren't being held as criminals, they are being held as combatants. They aren't in prison, they are under detention. They aren't subject to the US Civil Code, they are subject to the laws of warfare. They are not being held because they are bad guys in and of themselves, they are being held because they joined the bad guys, and will rejoin them when released.

Ask the guys who died in captivity during the Hundred Years War. The reason that you keep combatants locked up for the duration is because when you release them, they will return to the battlefield, unless the war is over. They aren't simply individual criminals, they're part of something bigger than themselves, as as long as they are committed to that something, they will continue to fight.

This isn't about them. They aren't criminals, they are combatants, and the case doesn't end when they are convicted, it ends when the organization that they belong to surrenders. This is about winning the war.

You really don't understand the paradigm. You are thinking of them as criminals who need to be convicted of a crime, a something that needs to be addressed via the criminal justice system, but this is the wrong context. War isn't part of our justice system because it occurs outside of our jurisdiction, and the actions of the enemy on the battlefield do not come under our jurisdiction until the battlefield is under our jurisdiction, i.e., when the war is over and we have won. Because these men have engaged in terror attacks against civilian targets, you are thinking of them as common criminals, but terrorism on behalf of a foreign power isn't just a crime, it's an act of war. It extends the battlefield to the home front and makes non-combatants into targets, which makes it a war crime, but the prosecution of that crime is secondary. The first thing, the primary objective of the war effort, is winning the war. Trying them for war crimes doesn't advance the war effort. In fact, by obscuring their status, it sets it back because it creates conflicts like this. Giving them access to the classified data that was collected in their capture, presenting them with a forum to spout propaganda and collaborate with anti-American factions within the US, releasing combatants who will go back to the battlefield and take up arms the minute that they are released, these are acts that are suicidal in wartime, but we are doing them, because we have obscured and confused the nature of the threat. You have to understand that the GITMO detainees aren't being held as criminals, they are being held as combatants. They aren't in prison, they are under detention. They aren't subject to the US Civil Code, they are subject to the laws of warfare. They are not being held because they are bad guys in and of themselves, they are being held because they joined the bad guys, and will rejoin them when released.

When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

When I brought up the idea of a trial, I'm assuming most of them (probably 99% of them) will be convicted, not get to return to the battlefield. I'm still not comfortable with this idea, but I see what you're saying. You're right.

I have always thought that the recounts were not as much about changing the results as about finding out how the Dems' own voter fraud was counteracted and, perhaps, getting Soros voting machines in...